The Austin weekly statesman. (Austin, Tex.) 1883-1898, 1887-08-11
LOCAL OPTION WRONG.
A Prohibltlonist's Plea Against the
Twin of Prohibition.
To the Editor Of the Statesman.

tempt to hold local optlOn election IN
this county at this time will meet with
positive condemnation by every true
fried of prohibition. In view
of the majority by which
the recently proposed prohibitory
amendment was defeated in Travis county
and throughout the state, any agitation
looking to a renewal of the contest in any
form at this juncture is the sheerest folly,
and worse. 1t can accomplish no ben
efcial result, and will only serve to pro-
long and to intensity discussions already
too prevalent and pernicious.
The country has been greatly Frustrated
by the excited canvass just ended, and the
public mind is in no condition for a
rational and judicious consideration of
the prohibition question, in whatever as
poet it might be presented. A local
option election in this county now would
involve very considerable expense, pro-
mote bitter and lasting feuds. meet with
certain defeat, and can be justified by no
consideration of public policy or profit,
present or prospective. 1t would be the
continuation of an idle and Intellectual
struggle, prompted by factious and
fanatical spite, and productive of public
and private inconvenience. As mere
matter, then, of expedience and good
taste, such calamity, if possible, should
be averted.
Moreover, 1t Is the well-considered
Judgment of leading prohlbitionists
throughout the state, in which opinion l
heartily concur, that apart from being
valuable constitutional recognition of
the principle and propriety OF
prohibition, the local option law
is radically wrong in method and opera
ton, and necessarily imperfect and inef-
ficient in practice. AS Senator Coke de
clared two years ago and reiterated in his
letter to Mr.. Gibbs in May last, "loca
option and state prohibition are one and
the same, identical both as to principle
and expediency"; or, as he more graphic
ally described on another occasion, local
optlon is state prohibition in spots" he
furthur maintained, that the arguments
favoring the former were stronger as APP
piled to the latter, and emphatica)ly pro-
claimed that the principle Of pro-
hibition, "if good for the precinct, is bet
ter for the county, and best for the state. y
The local option clause in the consti-
tuition is an important organic approval
by the people of the great doctrine OF the
states right and duty to prohibit the liq-
uor traffic. But, beyond this abstract sig
nifcance, it has little practical value, ano
in my Judgment is essentially evasive
| illusory and Objectionable in whatever as
poet it may be regarded. 1t Is an attempt
to avoid the duty incumbent upon the
state in its sovereign capacity, and for thu
| e no al itsalf Claa RI,
recognizes an imperative public necessity
by RELOCATING this proper function o
statehood to small and isolated communl
ties, which are in the very nature
things incapable of conten~ ing with al
evil whose presence is admitted and who's
oppression is sought to be effected
The sovereignty of the commonwealth
thus framed out, apportioned and BELT
tied to the level of precinct politics, ls
Fhumiliating manifestation of the want o
conscience and courage on the part o
those at whose hands the people, forge ri
have been demanding adequate remedle
against q foe, whose formidable aggres
sions all concede and none defend.
The local option law is also open to tn
serious objection of violating the we
3 established principle that statutes shout
VI come from the hands of the legislatlS
branch of the government, perfect an
/ selt-operative, and not require the vacl
: lating and irregular approval of popult
). acce ptance to put them into effect. It
Il true, our court of appeals has repudiate
r. this criticism, but the reasonings an
ID conclusions of that tribunal have not r.
)f moved the anomalous and objectlonab
er feature of the law in this respect, nj
or Quoted the opposition of all sound la
IN yers and lovers of approved government
I'D methods against such legislation.
The actual workings of the law ha'
no been futile and discouraging, as they mu
b. ever be from the necessities of the stu
r. tion. It ia safe to assert that, except
il small towns and remote country precinc
of local option has been practically ia
he ure. It has been more. 1t has been
Dis positive obstacle to the growth and Pc
'r, ular strength of the only proper and ct
a. Gent method by which the desired o.
ed can be attained. 1t cannot have escap
Mt the attention of those who participant
I'D in the recent canvass in
"a. state at large, that in those commur
u ties where local option is now or has be
or in force, the greatest and most insupel
ty BILE opposition to prohibition was
r. countered; and the returns from the eli
of ton show that, in nearly every such
RS oaIity, the amendment was defeated or I
ne ceived very weak support. I can read
Sc account for this upon grounds which We
ct easily discoverable to any one who soug
mt the cause for an apparently inconsiste
10, state of feeling. In local option distri
RS invariably three large and infuent
ne classes were arrayed against the propos
Is; amendment.
ps First-Those who were opposed to pi
ID hibitlon in any form, whether local
'e- general; second, those who regarded 10
option as failure, and who,i very inc
seauentially, reasoned to the conclusl
ne that state prohibition would be equally
Id and, third, those who were satisfied W
OF the existing law and believed Il
20, local option, properly enforced, furnish
adequate protection against the hq'
no traffic. Thus, prohibition in such loct
'ir ties was confronted by open foes, {
sn' couraged friends and misguided advoca
ye' of the principle, but not the method
n. the proposed amendment, and the res
NJ could not but be disastrous.
o. Local option, at best, is but he
or hearted, lame attempt to do that VIII
m can be effectually accomplished by mel
H. more in consonance with appro
IN methods of legislation, more in keep
to with the full and legitimate scope of